Upload
deirdre-davidson
View
231
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PSY 323:Cognition
Chapter 8: Everyday Memory & Memory Errors
Autobiographical Memory (AM)
Memory over the life spanRecollected events that belong to a person’s pastEpisodic memory for events from our life plus personal semantic memories of facts about our livesMultidimensionalSpatial, emotional, and sensory componentsVisual experience often plays a significant role in forming and retrieving AM
Autobiographical Memory
Cabeza et al. (2004)
ProcedureCompared brain activation caused by either autobiographical memory or laboratory memoryParticipants viewed pictures of Duke UniversityPhotographs they took (A-photos)Photographs taken by someone else (L-photos)
Autobiographical Memory
ResultsBoth types of photos activated brain structures associated with
Episodic memory Processing scenes
Photographs participants took also activated brain structures associated with
PROCESSING INFO ABOUT THE SELF Memory for visual space Mental time travel memory
Cabeza et al. (2004)
Areas in the parahippocampal gyrus that were activated by the A-photos and the L-photos: Activation was much greater for the A-photos.
Parietal cortex showing similar areas activated by both the A-photos and the L-photos during the memory test.
Cabeza et al. (2004)
Autobiographical Memory
Problems with testing AM…
LimitationsUnlike lists of words, autobiographical memory is hard to studyAll self reportsHard to check on the reliability of the responsesThe diary approach and the cue word approach may be useful, but have their limitations
Memory Over the Lifespan
Conway (1996)Reminiscence Bump When participants over the age of 40
are surveyed about life events they show enhanced memory for adolescence and young adulthood
People in this study tended to remember more that happened around their 20’s.
Why?
Memory Over the Lifespan
Schrauf & Rubin (1998)
Why do we have the reminiscence bump?
Some explanations
Reminiscence Bump
Self-image hypothesisMemory is enhanced for events that occur as a person’s self-image or life identity is being formedPeople assume identities during adolescence and young adulthood
Rathbone et al. (2008)
Reminiscence Bump
Cognitive HypothesisEncoding is better during periods of rapid change that are followed by stability
See next slide for study that tested this
Autobiographical memories of immigrants
Those emigrated at age 20-24
Those emigrated at age 34-35
Memory Over the LifespanSchrauf & Rubin (1998)
Memory Over the Lifespan
Cultural Life-Script HypothesisEach person has:A personal life storyAn understanding of culturally expected events (cultural life script)Personal events are easier to recall when they fit the cultural life scriptMany important events occur during reminiscent bump time frame
Berntsen & Rubin (2004)
Memory for Emotional Stimuli
Emotional events remembered more easily and vividlyThis feeling that emotionally charged events are easier to remember has been confirmed by laboratory research
Enhances consolidation processRecall gets better over timeKey structure: amygdalaBran scans provide evidence for this
LaBar & Phelps (1998)ProcedureRead a list of 40 words (20 arousing; 20 neutral)Tested ability to immediately recall arousing words and neutral wordsTested again after one hour delayResultsSignificant differences were found for both tests
Memory & Emotion
See next slide
LaBar & Phelps (1998)ResultsNearly identical for both tests
Memory & Emotion
Results for immediate recall test
Dolcos et al. (2005)ProcedureTested ability to recall emotional and neutral pictures a year after initial presentationResults Amygdala activity was higher for the
emotional pictures Emotional pictures more easily recognized in
recall test
Memory & Emotion
See next slide
Dolcos et al. (2005)
Memory & Emotion
Results
Flashbulb Memories
Brown & Kulick (1977)Proposed idea that we tend to remember important, shocking, and stunning events more vividly like a mental photographyMemory for the circumstances surrounding how a person heard about the event
Flashbulb Memories
Brown & Kulick (1977)Proposed idea that we tend to remember important, shocking, and stunning events more vividly like a mental photographyMemory for the circumstances surrounding how a person heard about the event
Neisser & Harsch (1992)
ProcedureRepeated recall experiment of special event (Challenger Explosion which occurred Jan 28, 1986)
Are flashbulb memories really accurate?
Liftoff at 11:39 EST Explosion at 11:40 EST
Neisser & Harsch (1992)
ProcedureParticipants recalled the event repeatedly at different times after the event3 days later, 10 months later, 5 years laterTested the consistence of their recall
ResultsRight after the explosion, 21% of the participants indicated that they had first heard about it on TV2 1/2 years later, 45% of the participants reported that they had first heard about it on TV
InterpretationFlashbulb memories decay just like regular memories
Are flashbulb memories really accurate?
Talarico & Rubin (2003) ProcedureCollege students asked a number of questions on September 12, 2001Some of these questions were about the terrorist attacksOthers were similar questions about an everyday event in the person’s life that occurred in the days just preceding the attacksAfter picking the everyday event, the participant created a two- or three-word description that could serve as a cue for that event in the futureSome participants were retested 1 week later, some 6 weeks later, and some 32 weeks later
Are flashbulb memories really accurate?
Are flashbulb memories really accurate?
Talarico & Rubin (2003)
Results
InterpretationoIn reality, no differences between Flashbulb Memories and regular memories appear to exist; however, we have a perception that they are very different
Flashbulb Memories
Narrative Rehearsal HypothesisRepeated viewing/hearing of event after initial exposure can potentially impact memoryWatching news coverage, discussing the event with others, etc.Could introduce errors in own memory
The Constructive Nature of Memory
Bartlett (1932)ProcedureParticipants read a tale “War of the Ghosts” and then re-told it several times Retellings were spaced out at increasing longer intervals (repeated reproduction paradigm)Researchers monitored progressive changes in what participants remembered about the story
The Constructive Nature of MemoryResultsOmissions
Poor recall for many of the details (specific names, or events)
Minor events were omitted (recall for main plot and sequence of events was not too bad)
Shorter than the originalNormailizations
Tendency to add and alter the stories to make them more conventional or reasonable (top-down processing)
InterpretationMemories are not accurate records of what happened but construction of what might have happened
Bartlett (1932)
Source Monitoring
The process of determining the origins of our memoriesSource Monitoring Error is fairly common
SOURCE MONITORING: BECOMING “FAMOUS OVERNIGHT
Jacoby (1988)Procedure•Participants task: study faces of famous and unknown people
•Later tested: to see if they recognized studied faces and asked to judge their “fame”
SOURCE MONITORING: BECOMING “FAMOUS OVERNIGHT
Jacoby (1988)
Procedure & Results
Interpretation•When stimuli is familiar it is sometimes difficult to determine its source
Making Inferences
Pragmatic inferenceWe make inferences based on what we already knowLeads us to expect something that is not explicitly stated
Making inferences
Arkes & Freedman (1984)ProcedureResearchers divided participants into two groups: those who had knowledge of rules of baseball and those who did notRead the following story to participants:
In a baseball game, the score is tied 1 to 1. The home team has runners on first and third, with one out. A ground ball is hit to the shortstop. The shortstop throws to second base, attempting a double play. The runner who is at third scores, so it is now 2-1 in favor of the home team.
Making inferences
Arkes & Freedman (1984)After a short delay, participants were asked to indicate whether the following sentence was part of the story:
“The batter was safe at first.”Results
Participants who knew the rules of baseball were more likely to remember the story incorrectly
Interpretation Knowledge caused an incorrect inference to be made
about the story that was presented to them
Source Amnesia
Remembering something but attributing it to the wrong source
We may recognize someone but have no idea where we saw that person
Scripts & Schemas
ScriptOur conception of the sequence of events that usually occur during a specific experienceSchemaA stored framework or body of knowledge about some topic
These concepts explain adjustments and additions when re-telling the stories; why when we encounter new material, we try to relate it into existing schemas
Scripts & Schemas
Brewer & Treyens (1981)
ProcedureUsed naturalistic setting: had participants enter an office
In this office were:Schema-consistent objects (e.g. a desk, calendar,
and eraser)Schema-inconsistent objects (e.g. a skull, a toy
top) Missing from this office were some schema-
consistent objects (e.g. books)
Scripts & Schemas
Brewer & Treyens (1981)
ProcedureLater, participants were surprised with a test asking them to:
First, recall all the objects they could remember
Second, recognize items actually in the office from those that were not
Scripts & Schemas
ResultsBooks and filing cabinets were recalled but were not present in the room
Office used by Brewer & Treyens (1981)
Scripts & Schemas
ResultsParticipants recalled more schema-consistent than schema-inconsistent items
True for both items that were present and items that weren’t
Objects that weren’t present in the room but were recognized with high confidence were uniformly schema-consistent
Recalled items were most likely to be objects consistent with the schema (e.g., typewriter)
Interpretation Schemas lead to errors in memory Schemas are often used as a retrieval mechanism to
facilitate recallBrewer & Treyens (1981)
The Misinformation Effect
After exposure to subtle misinformation, many people tend to misremember Can change how a witness describes the
event at a later date This misleading information after a person
witnesses an event is referred to as misleading postevent information (MPI)
As memory fades with time, the injection of misinformation becomes easier
The Misinformation Effect
Loftus & Palmer (1974)Experiment 1ProcedureCars were driving on what appeared to be a one-lane highwaySubjects saw the same film of a car accidentLater, different subjects were asked: “How fast were the cars going when they…”
smashed collided bumped contacted hit
The Misinformation Effect
Experiment 1ResultsSubjects estimates of speed varied with the verb they got in the question
Subjects who got the stronger verb (smashed) gave higher estimates of speed
Elizabeth Loftus
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Experiment 2This time the accident took place at an intersection and cars were going considerably slower.The key question:
◦Group 1: "About how fast (MPH) were the cars going when they hit each other?◦Group 2: "About how fast (MPH) were the cars going when they smashed into each other?◦Group 3: Participants in this control group were not interrogated about vehicular speed
The Misinformation Effect
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Experiment 2One week later
Without viewing the film again subjects were asked several questions
Embedded randomly in a series of questions is the critical question: "Did you see any broken glass?"
The Misinformation Effect
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
A week after the film: “Did you see the broken glass?” Note: No glass was in the film
32% in the “smashed” group said YES Compared to 14% of the “hit” group
The likelihood of saying YES increased as the estimates of speed increased Remembering broken glass was more common for
participants who had seen “smashed”
Possible Conclusions
How accurate is Eyewitness Testimony? A lot is involved here
Perception – can only remember what is perceivedThis depends on one’s attention level at the timeAlso, may depend on top-down processing
Memory Trace Replacement HypothesisMPI impairs or replaces original memories
Retroactive interferenceSomething new (MPI) and this might cause
something old to be forgotten
Errors of Eyewitness Identification
Errors due to AttentionWeapon-focus effect: An eyewitness’s diminished ability to subsequently identify a perpetrator when a weapon was used in a crimeErrors due to FamiliarityJust looking familiar can lead to you being accusedErrors due to SuggestionPost-identification feedback effect leads to confident witnesses
These are recollections of events or details of an event that did not occur
Hyman, Husband, & Billings (1995) Procedure
Contacted the parents of their adult participants (college students) and asked them to provide descriptions of actual events that happened when the participants were children
The experimenters also created descriptions of false events Deception was used as participants were told that all the
events were supplied by the parents Participants were asked if they recalled the event and if so to
elaborate
Creating False Memories?
Results 20% of false events were “recalled” and described in some
detail by participants Sometimes it took a follow-up interview for participants to
“remember” the false event Interpretation
Apparently, hearing about the event and then waiting caused the false event to be remembered as being a real event Source monitoring error (source amnesia)
Familiarity Source monitoring error (source amnesia)
Creating False Memories?
Hyman, Husband, & Billings (1995)
Lindsay, Hagen, Read, Wade, Garry (2004)Partial replication of Hyman, Husband, & Billings (1995)Participants also viewed a photo of when they were in first or second grade
Wade, Garry, Read, & Lindsay (2002)Hot air balloon study
Creating False Memories?
Credits
Some of the slides in this presentation prepared with the assistance of the following web sites:
www.tamu.edu/.../Ch%208%20Everyday%20Memory.ppt people.auc.ca/brodbeck/3717/episodic.ppt misskanaley.edublogs.org/.../Cognition-Long-Term-Memory-...
courses.csusm.edu/.../Interactions%20in%20LTM%20--%20C...